If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Kennel Club's first reaction is predictable............The APGAW Report is very very long, but just read the Executive Summary at the start, read Jemima Harrison's article in K9 Magazine, and then read the KC spin

APGAW Report: Very Strong Recommendations on Breed Health

Should also have mentioned,is the Reading of the APGAW Report not referring to Breeders who have not carried out Health Checks on their Breeding Stock for known Health Problems particular their Breed,and if the Puppy they have sold ,then the Buyer will be able to have a Claim for up to 3 years against the Breeder.

Is this what others also make of this mention. ?

I would think this is a very sensible Recommendation.

This sure will catch out Puppy Farmers, BYB ,and those other Breeders who don't do Health Tests.

And PDE producer Jemima Harrison's response to the KC's response to the APGAW report (in which they make it sound as if they were already doing all the recommendations in the report! The KC clearly are hoping no one will actually read its strong indictment of their inaction and for years on these issues).

The spinmeisters of Clarges St are clinging to the few morsels of comfort offered to the KC in the APGAW report. But make no mistake - this is a totally damning indictment of the mess pedigree dogs have ended up in under the KC’s watch. The KC has always deflected criticism by accusing its critics of bias, but now an independent report by an all-party group of MPs has also found a “serious welfare problem” that requires “urgent action”.
Indeed, the MPs have decided that the KC is so incapable of driving through the necessary reform on its own that it advises an independent dog authority – and wants to put the KC on a year’s probation.

Further:

• It is palpable nonsense for the KC to claim that the KC has taken measures to ensure that dog owners are “fully aware” of the problems and how to minimise the risk.

• It is astonishing that the KC continues to peddle the ABS as the benchmark when the Report remarked on the low standards adopted by some ABS breeders – and specifically pointed out that the public may be being deceived into thinking a puppy from an accredited breeder will be free of health and
welfare problems.

• The KC has glossed over APGAW’s strong calls for tougher health testing both as a condition of registration and of winning rosettes, suggesting that the report supports the KC’s current softly-softly approach. This is a real distortion of APGAW’s findings.

• The KC has also misrepresented APGAW ‘s findings regarding the role of dog shows and has chosen to ignore the MPs’ sharp criticism of More4 for broadcasting Crufts 2010.

However, and regardless of the KC’s face-saving spin, the rollercoaster of reform is, surely, now unstoppable and that is very good news for dogs.”